Let us mention, once again, the benevolence and impunity enjoyed by Les Indigènes de la République, whose very own source of inspiration and a textbook case of ‘racist anti-racism’, Houria Bouteldja, never misses one single opportunity to lash out at what she hates compulsively, namely Whites and France. These abject people organise ‘racised’[136] summer camps, i.e. camps reserved exclusively for coloured participants and off-limits to Whites, who are all defined as oppressive by nature. We welcome them in France, and this is how they repay us.
At this level, one can readily assess the extent to which these mentally complexed allogeneous individuals — all of whom are ill at ease in their own skin, in the throes of a biological sort of resentment and mediocre good-for-nothings — have been stricken with schizophrenia.
Although anti-racism is a hazy ideology, it is simultaneously seen as an imperious and chic creed by the snobbish, mundane and social-climbing elites that propagate it. For the supposed racist is, in their eyes, not only despicable, but also an old-fashioned hick; a white one, of course, and one that becomes the focus of their derision (as seen in Yves Boisset’s propaganda film Dupont Lajoie).[137] The invading Islamic forces have taken full advantage of their adversaries’ disabling discrepancy, in which the latter’s dogmatic antiracism is combined with a pathological sort of guilt relating to their own nature and history. Islam, along with its minions, generals and collaborators, thus makes the most of things to present itself as a victim, as being stigmatised by a certain form of racism, before tearfully launching its ruthless conquest. Its deceptive song and dance is, however, something that an ever-increasing number of people are now familiar with.
Anti-racism has become a self-destructive concept, not only because it can be applied to virtually anything but, most importantly, because it leads to anti-White racism and hatred for France’s European identity. Moreover, it is one of the main factors contributing to the decline of freedom of expression and the judicialisation of debates, which brings us closer to the situation of totalitarian countries, whose taboos and protected dogmas one is forbidden to transgress. Yet again, through a heterotelic kind of backlash, anti-racism results in the opposite effect to the one intended, fostering the resurgence of racist theories that come across as being nonconformist. Braving the intelligentsia, Pascal Bruckner writes: ‘Anti-racism ends up delegitimising the very idea of a fight against racism, a fight that takes on a disproportionate attitude and contradicts its own terms’. The exclusion of white people is not considered a sign of racist discrimination, since white men themselves are obviously the source of all discrimination and racism…
What is alarming is that our courts accept these masquerades and investigate the accusations, complaints and lawsuits filed by the members of pro-immigration, vindictively Muslim and Islamo-leftist anti-racist back rooms, with the notion of our indigenous population’s unbearably racist Islamophobia always lurking in the background.
In doing so, our unjust justice system is exacerbating passions. The rise of racial tensions is visible within the immigrant and Muslim population (having practically become synonymous with it in France), which is especially true of its youths. It is a population that is now increasingly aware — within its secretly hateful and dissenting conscience — of its belonging to a non-white world engaged in a struggle against a France deemed scornful and hostile. The racist contagion of this hatred will lead to a war which, in addition to its ethnic and cultural character, will also be of a racial nature. It will, furthermore, involve non-Muslims such as black Africans or mixed-race individuals that often convert to Islam not for religious reasons, but for racial ones. Such is the solidarity of inferior peoples against the ‘white oppressor’ (who welcomed them on his own soil, but what does that matter, right?).
Speaking of those immigrants and people of colour one encounters everywhere, a friend of mine, who happens to be a professor of sociology (the discipline that prefers observation to speculation), recently pointed out to me that what they basically do is ‘raise their heads, act arrogantly and proceed to provoke us. For many years now, their attitude in public spaces has been both aggressive and irritable. They constantly demand our “respect”’.
In this deeply racialised society pervaded by a detestable anti-racist vulgate that exclusively targets white racism, Islam enjoys an abnormal status: it is increasingly accepted as both the religion and the emblem of coloured people, i.e. of the eternally oppressed (yet largely aided, privileged and subsidised), at a time when massacres and oppressive actions are gleefully carried out in its name. It is all part of a pathological paradox in which the executioner presents himself as the condemned.
I would not want to make matters any more difficult for my editor than they already are with regard to this book, whose mere title could be enough to have us imprisoned by the 17th criminal chamber.[138] Believe me when I say that I have thus far been refraining from stating what is truly on my mind. My hatred for the false discourse of leftist academics does, however, deserve — at least — a sub-chapter of its own.
I am a normal person, and I see what I see. Having perceived things as they are, I describe what I have witnessed, only what I have witnessed, and everything I have witnessed. There are no frills and no emphasis involved. To me, and to all normal people, a cleaner is above all a housekeeper; a small person, a dwarf; and a person of colour, one who can also be said to be black, since it is a shorter and more accurate description.
When a Marxist thinker appears on a TV set in order to express his opinion (and such people are constantly invited by TV presenters that share their ideas), it is for the sole purpose of intellectualising, blurring and thus rendering unsolvable the daily problems experienced by our French natives, who are forced to live among non-Whites. This open-eyed nightmare of theirs is repeated day in, day out. Our rulers impose immigration upon each and every one of us, as sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other accomplices are seen on television in their fancy clothes and lovely little brown-nose glasses, telling us that it is all actually a blessing. The process of ethnic replacement is underway, but all is well, no problemo…
Of course, the more time passes, the greater the immigrant presence becomes, and the more difficult it is to abide by the fanciful claim that ‘what the French and the foreigners feel for one another is great love!’ To smother our genuine suffering and legitimate anxieties, the floor is exclusively given to self-proclaimed experts whose aim is to euthanise our people’s anger while attempting to artificially shift its focus.
Speaking on a programme that is no longer aired,[139] Thomas Guénolé, a pretentious political scientist serving the interests of La France Insoumise (a fact that already says enough about him), made me realise just how dangerous all economic discourses can be when used as deus ex machina argumentation to nip any hope of debate in the bud.
During his glorious propagandic performance, this degenerate with the face of the perfect son-in-law told us all about the famous ‘social diversity’. Here already, we are faced with a lie and a travesty of the truth aimed at making the latter more palatable: what we are dealing with is not social diversity, since the suburbs are typically inhabited by proletarians and one can thus hardly speak of such a notion. No, what we have here is a situation of ethnic diversity. Indeed, these ‘tough neighbourhoods’ (another expression used by leftists to avoid using the term ‘shitholes’) comprise a chaotic mixture of Blacks, Arabs, and Whites trying to subsist amidst this fauna without being slaughtered. Remaining calmly impassive, this gentleman proceeded to explain to us that ‘social diversity is merely the side effect of a policy whose purpose is to reduce inequalities’. Oh, now I get it — when the powers-that-be send non-Europeans to live amongst the French in their own villages, they do so in an attempt to reduce inequalities and out of sheer philanthropy, you see. At a later point, he finally expanded on his theory: ‘I would like to warn everyone against the intellectual scam epitomised by the issue of identity within the sphere of political debate’. This is where Thomas Guénolé stops beating around the bush and uses straightforward language to ensure that his postulate is perfectly understood.
136
AN: This use of the term ‘racised’, a neologism meant to designate non-Whites, is a very interesting one, since it betrays a blatant inferiority complex (Whites do not belong to a race, they are apart, above) and a relentless racial obsession.
137
TN:
139
AN: The show in question was